From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct 17 19:20:10 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FC4106566B
	for <freebsd-pf@hub.freebsd.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:20:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391D98FC17
	for <freebsd-pf@hub.freebsd.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:20:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9HJKAea068655
	for <freebsd-pf@freefall.freebsd.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:20:10 GMT
	(envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p9HJKAwU068654;
	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:20:10 GMT (envelope-from gnats)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:20:10 GMT
Message-Id: <201110171920.p9HJKAwU068654@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= <eri@freebsd.org>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: kern/114095: [carp] carp+pf delay with high state limit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= <eri@freebsd.org>
List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter
	\(pf\)" <freebsd-pf.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf>,
	<mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-pf@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf>,
	<mailto:freebsd-pf-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:20:10 -0000

The following reply was made to PR kern/114095; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= <eri@freebsd.org>
To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>
Cc: nerijus.ambrazas@ktu.lt, freebsd-pf@freebsd.org, bug-followup@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/114095: [carp] carp+pf delay with high state limit
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:47:31 +0200

 2011/10/17 Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>:
 > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 02:18:38PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
 > E> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 4:20 PM, =A0<glebius@freebsd.org> wrote:
 > E> > Synopsis: [carp] carp+pf delay with high state limit
 > E> >
 > E> > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 > E> > State-Changed-By: glebius
 > E> > State-Changed-When: Sat Oct 15 14:20:00 UTC 2011
 > E> > State-Changed-Why:
 > E> > Not a bug. This is a feature. pfsync(4) suppresses carp(4)
 > E> > preemption until new recently booted node downloads full
 > E> > table of pf(4) states from its peer.
 > E>
 > E> This is not true on FreeBSD.
 > E> The issue might be from other reasons.
 >
 > This is a surprise for me that this feature had been removed!
 >
 > It used to be in stable/6:
 >
 > http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/ident?v=3DFREEBSD60;i=3Dcarp_suppress_preempt
 >
 > And I always treated that variable in CARP as shared with pf. Why did
 > they removed this feature from pfsync?
 >
 
 OpenBSD has it but FreeBSD is SMP capable and global vars without
 synchronization do not work well.
 To support that you have to add cross-dependencies and synchronization
 between the two.
 
 Not only synchronization though even some housekeeping around....
 I will probably give a look at this again after 9.0.
 
 > P.S. Since PR is about 6.2-RELEASE, then I have closed it correctly.
 >
 > --
 > Totus tuus, Glebius.
 >
 
 
 
 --=20
 Ermal